tirsdag 16. februar 2016

Bridge over Troubled Water? Re-baptism in a Nordic Context - Reflextions and Proposals

Published in: Pneuma 35 (2013) 235-252

Urban
Pentecostal churches in the Nordic Countries face a specific challenge
regarding the doctrine and practise of baptism: many of those who attend
Pentecostal services in Oslo, Copenhagen, Stockholm and Helsinki, are – due to
their background in a predominantly Lutheran tradition – not necessarily
members of Pentecostal churches. Most of them were baptized as infants.
Traditionally, Pentecostal church regulations would state the need to be
rebaptized since infant baptism is not recognized as a valid act within Nordic Pentecostalism.
So, should all of them have to be rebaptized to get their membership? How
important is the amount of water as long as their theological reflection is
compatible? And second, how can the doctrine of baptism become even more
substantial within the Pentecostal tradition at the same time as new
bridge-building practices are established across denominational borders? Is
there a bridge over troubled water? The question is legitimate because the
practice of rebaptism still represents a huge ecumenical challenge, creating
tension between different church bodies.

Two situation pictures

Let
me give you the first situation picture: Turn to any of the largest Pentecostal
churches in the Nordic countries and ask for the topic that evokes the most
interest. Probably all of them will point to this: the relationship between
baptism and church affiliation with regard to all those - and they are not few
– coming from the Folk church tradition who were baptized as infants but now define
a Pentecostal church as their spiritual home. Consequently they cannot become
members unless they are rebaptized.[1]
Only a few of them are ready to be baptized again in order to become a member
of a Pentecostal church. The fact is that many of them still consider their
infant baptism as valid and important. To a greater or lesser degree they have
grown up as believers and have lived in their “baptismal covenant” all their
life.They indeed have a living faith, received in a
Lutheran context and in the “room of faith” of home and church. According to
Lutheran theology the prerequisite for the baptism of children is the
expectation that the baptized will appropriate a living faith, though posterior
to the point of time of the baptismal act. Through the emerging faith they will
receive what Christian baptism proclaims to provide. So, if you ask them about their
infant baptism – an event they do not remember – they still consider it as a
valuable part of their life in faith. They even reveal a theological awareness in
relation to their baptism that sometimes goes far beyond what many members of
the Baptist and Pentecostal traditions show with regards to the content and
nature of this doctrine.

Pentecostal
pastors and theologians, on their side, refuseto be
engaged in active agitation for rebaptism, because of their intuitive respect for
the baptismal character of being a one-time action.Instead some of them ask whether new theological
and liturgical criteria for affiliation with a Pentecostal church can be
established.[2] One condition seems to be obvious: such criteria
cannot allow a situation where the doctrine of baptism ends in a shapeless
compromise or becomes set aside in a shadowy theological backyard.[3]

The
second situation picture: In
1982, 120 theologians from a hundred different denominations came together in
Lima, Peru to finish their ecumenical work on the convergence document labelled
Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry.[4]
The BEM declaration gradually became the most famous dialogue document from
Faith and Order. In many ways this statement makes for good reading,
characterized as it is by mutual respect for different doctrinal positions and its
awareness of both the objective and subjective sides of the New Testament baptismal
texts. However, one of the articles is a demanding read for those
churches which are living side by side with majority churches with the
tradition of infant baptism, namely section IV/13: “Baptism is an
unrepeatable act. Any practice which might be interpreted as ‘re-baptism’ must
be avoided”(BEM
p. 4). Is this a formulation in line with the gradually established
ecumenical “code of conduct”,[5] or is it an indication of power language expressed
by the historical churches, showing lack of sensitivity to the complex questions
re-baptism instigates? Is it a legacy from the condemnation statements in Confessio Augustana or is it quite the contrary:
an attempt to safeguard Christian baptism as a sacred act of unity?

In
the official comment from the Church
of Norway this specific statement
in BEM is characterized as “a source of great joy.”[6] Other churches considered the paragraph about
re-baptism to be too short and too bold, not taking sufficiently into account that
the issue of re-baptism not unilaterally belongs with the Baptist oriented
churches.The Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland
could not agree that “an a priori
universal bar should operate” regarding the question of re-baptism (ibid, 48).
In an additional commentary in BEM, Faith and Order described the section as a natural
fruit of an ecumenical approach, stating that the closer the churches come to
each other, the greater is the desire to refrain from practices that cause
embarrassment with regards to the theological and sacramental integrity of
other churches. This development probably has to be understood in light
of substantial changes in attitudes in general, provided by postmodern
insights.

Preference
given to understanding

Behind
the desire to build bridges over troubled water we find a significant amount of
empirical evidence showing how churches gradually have come closer to each
other.[7] This is also perceptible in the
field of academic theology.[8]The development takes place through an
intriguing movement on the ground level in local churches, making the
limitations of the old denominational lines a thing of the past. Churches have
become “guests in each other’s house,” and to a large extent they are guests
who do not want to leave! The reason is clear enough: the one obtains important
impulses from the other. Moreover, postmodernity stimulates a feeling of equality.People listen in new ways and they are able to
understand more constructively the other’s affairs, without being paralyzed by
fear and prejudice. Gradually representatives of different traditions
admit and acknowledge the spiritual treasures coming from other traditions.
Hopefully people from one tradition could consider these gifts as “medication”
which would heal the wounds and diseases of their own church.

Following
that, the children of faith and Spirit will get a distinct feeling of belonging
to each other. They can retrieve insights from others which help them to define
themselves more deeply.Moreover, there is a missional and
perhaps also a prophetic perspective here, given by one of the most esteemed
Norwegian Pentecostal evangelists throughout the last 60 years, Emanuel Minos.
In his latest book he writes that the time has come for various Christians to
come together, both from the high and low church tradition. “We should not
overlook the differences between us, especially in the view on baptism.But the challenges are larger than that, because our
country is in the process of being de-Christianized”. He concludes by writing: “united
we stand, divided we fall.”[9]In light of this, it is significant
to ask how transfer activity across the confessional borders can strengthen the
identity of each church instead of causing confusion.This is especially the case when it comes to the
doctrine of water baptism. Must the issue of baptism necessarily separate us?What is needed for the opposite to take place?Can various voices within the churches
together provide building blocks to “abridge over troubled water”?[10]

If,
as Paul declares in Ephesians 4, there is only one baptism, as there is
only one Lord and one faith, how important is then “the order of factors” in
the initiation process as long as the elements of faith, baptism and discipleship
are taken seriously in the different church traditions – whether those who
become baptized are children or full-grown?[11] In
light of the preference given to understanding each other, is it possible to create
a theological modus vivendi, a new way of living together as churches? How
can the content of baptismal fullness be secured at the same time as new,
bridge-building practices are established?Ecumenists,
theologians and pastors may provide constructive assistance for each other.But let us first look at some historical considerations.

The
baptismal debate: dialogue versus confrontation

Normally
we define our identity by highlighting certain parts of our life story. During my years as youth pastor I came across a tract
where the biblical foundation of adult baptism was presented on the left side and
a corresponding account of the doctrine of the Lutheran infant baptism was
rendered on the right side.The left
side was full of Scripture references, while the right side was completely
blank, without any text. The message was clear and in line with the strategy ofT.B. Barratt, the founder of the Pentecostal
Movement in Norway.
He probably was shaped more for conflict than for dialogue. He had a strong
polemical style in his writing, pronounced directly against the baptismal
practise of the Church
of Norway.The result was a clear awareness of what the
Norwegian Pentecostal movement was against.
To a lesser extent the Pentecostals were equipped with a reflected understanding
of their own doctrine of baptism.[12]
Barratt’s position also displayed a limited
interest within the revival culture for the historical context of the Church of Norway and its long traditions which
gives it a broad and valuable interface with the population.In his doctoral dissertation on Pentecostalism from
1956, Nils Bloch-Hoell comments with wonder why baptism became so important when
it was not given any sacramental meaning. He presumed
that its significance was connected to its ability to act as a confessional
demarcation line, indicating a break with the old churches.[13]

On
the other side, you do not need to search very deeply into the writings of an outstanding
Lutheran dogmatist, Leiv Aalen, to find corresponding stigmatizing descriptions
about adult baptism. Today it may hardly be recognized as well-grounded. Aalen could warn against
“the Baptist delusion of the question of baptism. Where this doctrine is spread,
it is a deadly danger to the Christian Church.”[14]We can clearly see how doctrinal debates about baptism have
been historically colored by their own contemporary context. The confessionalism of the majority
churches was in the Free Church tradition met
by a similar profile of resistance. At that time it could probably appear as historically
necessary. The strength of the Folk church model demanded an offensive defence.
Today it appears neither fruitful nor constructive (Hegertun 2009, p.
93-95).However, the
reaction can be seen from the perspective of the history of ideas, going back
to the Anabaptists and their fight for freedom of religion and conscience as
well as the voluntary element in the Baptist self-understanding.[15]Can this particular ideal
of freedom of conscience, so integrated as it is in the human rights tradition
today, be applied so as to talk about baptismal
freedom of conscience?

I
suppose so.In my view, a valid ecumenical approach presupposes
an understanding of identity which at its base is open to new experiences.
Without such an approach any potential reorientation normally would be interpreted
as an unattractive theological compromise. According to French
philosopher and literary theorist Jean-François
Lyotard, one of the distinctive features of postmodernity is that
confrontation is replaced by truth-seeking dialogue and a more intuitive
openness to the fact that the power of definition is not managed only by the
one part.[16]This makes dialogue
easier, but also more challenging because it threatens the safety we are
seeking, theologians as well.The risk
of dialogue is that while listening to the other we might possibly come across
insights that we have not yet acquired.

With
regard to how a church has emerged historically, perhaps with a strongly marked
theological (baptismal) profile, Pentecostal theologian Murray W. Dempster
points out that what may have been the distinctive feature of a denomination in
the past does not need to be the central sign in the future.[17] A
reorientation of attitudes is possible without changing the core concerns of a
faith community.
Consequently he distinguishes between positions
colored by their historically contingent conditions and factors of theologically
substantive character. This leads us to the question of the relation between
form and content.

The
relation between form and content

The
inflexibility of the baptismal debate has had consequences for the relation
between form and content. Strangely enough, within the Free Church tradition
the form has been subject to a greater attention than the content – the nature and function – of baptism. But, to some extent
the formhas been determined by circumstances
and context.[18] Of course it can be said that the
external figure is an integrated part of the baptismal act and therefore not insignificant. But there is something more than
the question of immersion which makes baptism to a specific Christian act: that it takes place
within the framework of the believing community, that Scripture is read and water
used as element, that the name of the triune God is proclaimed and that there is
some kind of statement of faith linked to the action.[19]These are normative elements for the
baptismal act, and belong to way the doctrine has to be communicated and
carried out. Baptismal practice, on
the other hand, has been subject to adjustments throughout church history.
Without the theologyat the centre of
our attention, a sort of “practice-fundamentalism” may occur with the result
that the deep intent of the doctrine of baptism is muddled.

In light of these reflections, it is legitimate to ask whether Christian
baptism is not in fact satisfactorily realized through more than just one baptismal
form.If the two different baptismal acts which are in
use in the global church today apparently do the same work, if they foster a
common understanding of the relation between faith and baptism, and if the
baptized becomes a disciple of Jesus and a citizen of the kingdom of God – both
whether faith is fostered before or a bit later than the actual time of the
baptismal act – what does this mean for the question of rebaptism?Given a common understanding of the theological
content of baptism, developed through ecumenical dialogues, may not in fact the
two forms be mutually appreciated as valid Christian baptism? Can form really
invalidate content?

“Ritualized
remembrance”

When
the night came on the cotton farms in the old days the slaves were singing:
“Where you there when they crucified my Lord?” This is a strange question. But
yes, we were there! As it is written: “What no eye has seen,what no ear has
heard,and what no human mind has conceived…” are
“things God has revealed to us by his Spirit” (1 Cor 2:9-10). Remembrance
(gr:ἀνάμνησις) in order to recapture what is given me
through the death and resurrection of Christ is an important perspective in
liturgy as well as in pastoral counselling. The eucharist meal functions as a
re-narration of the salvation story, as it is proclaimed to us and received by
faith in a transcending way. We could say that it makes present the effect of
something performed in earlier times. Through
this “ritualized remembrance” the believer has the ability to build bridges
between now and then and be in touch with a spiritual reality across time
and place. The experience pushes beyond what is remembered cognitively, and is
as much tied to an overarching interpersonal theological discourse.[20]

In the same manner as the baptized
are able to appropriate content from the overarching theological discourse to
form their own salvation story, they can also “live out” their baptism in their
everyday life independent of concrete psychical and social memories. Theories
of cognition permit for the possibility of uniting theology and history to get
a current experience of being carried on the
wings of salvation and by the eternal word of God’s promise.[21] That is why believers who are baptized as children
do not think of their baptism in categories of time, but through an understanding
of content.

This
opens up a new perspective for Pentecostal theologians: the question of the
sacramental potential of Pentecostal theology.Wesley Scott
Biddy reflects on how much of a distance there really is between the Pentecostal
spirituality with its emphasis on physical expressions, intercession prayer and
laying on of hands (Acts 8:17; 19.6) on the one hand, and, on the other, the doctrinal
conception of classical theology in which the visible world may contain
invisible realities.[22]Why could not spiritual
realities be expressed through baptism and Holy Communion, and thus have more
than a symbolic significance?And what
about the Pentecostal view of speaking in tongues as an outward sign of an
inner spiritual fullness? For long, worship
in charismatic churches has been a kind of “liturgy” in the sense that the participants
expect the special presence of God during this part of the service.When both Pentecostal spirituality and classical
theology learn that Christ is near by the Spirit through an incarnate
spirituality, what is then the difference between a Pentecostal who seeks
spiritual gifts by the laying on of hands and a Catholic who goes to the Communion
table in faith, convinced of the realtransformation
of the elements at the table?[23]

It
might actually be argued, with reference to Biddy, that Pentecostal spirituality
provides fertile ground for thinking about the means of grace as events in
which living encounters with God can take place through physical actions.Since
Pentecostals think like this when it comes to the presence of the Spirit in the
service, when the word of God is announced, in worship, and in intercession in
which the name of Jesus is proclaimed, why not when baptism and Communion are
administered in the same name of the Trinity; actions so clearly commanded by the
Lord?

“The
saving baptism”

Studies
of how Baptist and Pentecostal theologians and pastors have been thinking about
the content and nature of baptism actually point to a significant upgrading in theological
understanding.
This in turn leads to a closer approach to
other churches.One does not go
untouched in and out of each other’s house.The continual disagreement, however, appears to be
in the understanding of the anthropology of children. The English Baptist Keith
Clements, expresses how Baptist theology would be well served by developing a more
nuanced theology of the child in the church in general.[24]

A profiledbooklet
on baptism published by the Swedish Pentecostal movement (Pingst), states that “faith
and baptism is the way in which the Scripture effects the status of faith and
fellowship with God.”[25]The booklet opens the way
for a sacramental comprehension by using the phrase “the saving baptism” (p.
19) and continues by declaring that it contains a hidden reality in which God acts
with those who are baptized. Thus baptism is more than only a public
confession. Those who become baptized are given the fellowship of life with
Jesus Christ and with the church, the body of Christ on earth.This in turn leads to healing from the substantial
damage in the relation to God and ourselves caused by sin (ibid, 36). The
formulations described above lead toward a deeper understanding of the doctrine
of baptism. In this way Pentecostals today are able to reflect theologically
without being stuck in the obsolescence of polemics and demarcation.[26]

Three
ecumenical insights. First: Concurrent dimensions

Through
ecumenical dialogues and joint texts some common theological preconceptions of
baptism have been established between the churches.[27] To a certain extent also the Nordic
churches and Free Church denominations have been involved.[28]The main perspective is that repentance and
faith on the basis of the preached word, baptism, and the bestowal of the
Spirit are converging dimensions associated with the beginning of the Christian
life. It appears to be the overall picture of the New Testament texts of salvation,
specific in the programmatic statement in Acts 2:38: “Repent and be baptized, every
one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins. And
you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” The contextual framework for baptism
is the church, and discipleship constitutes the basic identity of the Christian
lifestyle.The baptized person is to
become a participant in the great drama that unites her with people of faith in
the past, present and future.Here the
collective dimension is even greater than the individual.A transfer of ownership has taken place.Baptism has taken on the character of a personal
interpretation of life.Baptism has
become the ID of the believer:“I am
baptized, therefore I am.” Thus, baptism
is linked more to the believer’s everyday life than to constructions of dogmatic
theories, and it centers on salvation history as proclaimed gospel and as an
appearance of the grace of God (Tit 2:11).
Because baptism definitely is related to the beginning of the Christian life,
all baptisms at a later stage on the path of faith will in part deplete baptism
of its theological substance and cause only a fragmentary contact with the
biblical material.[29]

The
New Testament texts about baptism are deep and wide-ranging.One’s
old life is placed under the judgment of the cross and a new life has begun –
in itself a huge ethical imperative. Media morte in vita summas - in the
middle of death we are still in life! The baptized has to count themselves as
dead to sin but alive to God in Christ (Rom 6:11), because in baptism they are “buried with him
through baptism into death” (v. 4).

This
thought is rather radical.In the spiritual sense, the believers
could be considered lying in the same tomb as Jesus.But right there
is also his whole church, in which every member on the body of Christ is linked
together in a life and community that makes the church to be one.[30]Being baptized implies giving to God the proprietary
right of one’s life (1Cor 6:19).
I commit myself to the community of faith with which I share the tomb of
baptism.I am no longer a private
practicing Christian (2Cor 5:17).
Therefore you may talk – as a Lutheran does – about salvation in baptism or –
as a Baptist does – about baptism in salvation.[31] Every means of grace is
built upon, and administered in accordance to, the mystery which is Christ in
you, the hope of glory – hidden for ages and generations, but disclosed to the
people of the Lord (Col 1:26-27).

Second:A Christological centre In both Pentecostal and Lutheran theology
there is a close connection between the doctrine of baptism and Christ, between
Jordan and Calvary.[32]The oneness in Christ is
given through faith and confession, not by uniform practices which in turn have
their origin in different historical circumstances.The awareness of Christ as the unifying centre
establishes a tool for discernment that allows the universal church to have a
span of insight and a variety of practice.Baptism does not refer back to the act itself or to
the person being baptized.It always refers
to Christ.And if baptism does not lead
to, reinforce, and strengthen the faith in Christ, any model of practice will
be considered flawed.In fact no unambiguous,
outward rite is able to guarantee the unity of the church, but only the faith
once for all delivered unto the saints” (Jude 1:3).[33]

The
deep sign character which colours the doctrine of Baptism talks about the
fundamental identity of being in Christ.Those who
are one in Christ are also part of his people. In a way equally fundamental to
the way you belong to Christ, you belong to everybody in the church of the Lord
– independent of denomination.Because
we are baptized into one body (1 Cor 12:13),what happens in one church is not insignificant
for the others.As long as the churches
are baptizing in the same name of the holy Trinity, every member and every
church has a relationship of mutual accountability. This also affects
the question – and attitude – of rebaptism.

Third:
The inner relation between baptism and faith

In
a Scandinavian context, some Lutheran theologians may
sometimes talk about the relationship between faith and baptism with even
greater clarity than many Baptists do.[34]In his commentary on the confessions of the Danish National
Church, Peder
Nørgaard-Højen declares that “if you break the relationship between baptism and
faith, in reality you cause a factual abandonment of the doctrine of
justification (Rom 1:17).”[35]In his opinion, the New
Testament narratives of personal faith stand in the way of the notion of a
vicarious faith (fides vicaria) applied to infant baptism. Sooner or
later the baptismal fruits have to be acquired personally.In his book Dåpen
og barnet (The Baptism and the Child)
from 1945, the profiled Lutheran dogmatician from Norway, Leiv Aalen, wrote
that where no one is able to guarantee that children receive a Christian
education in public schools and at home – what I describe as “the room of
faith” – infant baptism must cease, because training in faith and baptism are
inextricably linked (Aalen 1945: 74).Though the baptismal act still can be regarded as
valid, the baptism it is not effective without faith.[36]

Contemporary
analyses within the Free Church movement point in the same direction.One
asks whether an appropriate description of the religious and cultural
environment in Scandinavia and Europe – despite all baptismal acts within the
Folk Church frame of reference – in reality has not come quite close to the New
Testament missional context. If so, baptism may appear more as a missional act
than an anti-ecumenical action in the eyes of those who have lived as if God
and the Church does not exist, and accordingly ask for baptism when they come
to faith.[37]

In order to rescue the topic of faith and baptism from being reduced to
a matter of theological theory, but rather incite to faith-building practices,
it is natural for other churches to bring those critical concerns to the table
in their ecumenical talks wherever the Folk Church has its representatives.Not
only clergymen and scholars within the historical churches share their
criticism.Also the BEM Declaration is
concerned about these perspectives when the report challenges the majority
churches to make “a self-critical rethinking of the meaning of the baptism” with the assumption
that it is performed in a “seemingly uncritical manner”. The contemporary
educational reform program in The Church of Norway can be seen as a response to
this criticism.Nevertheless, the section
IV/13 in BEM needs to be discussed with even more seriousness within the
churches whose practice of infant baptism means one form of baptism always precedes
any other baptismal form.[38]

Summary

These
reflections lead to the following summaries and proposals:

1)Intentions. Instead
of talking about each other’s doctrine of baptism as wrong or right, it is more
constructive to argue that there are both weak and strong aspects of the
various views of baptism, both with regards to content and practice.No
one can readily proclaim that they represent “the New Testament baptism.”Every church tradition has its special challenges,
but also its good intentions.

2)Vitalization.
The theological sober-mindedness related to what baptism is and the theological
closeness of faith, baptism and the Spirit represent the most important
prerequisite for developing a new practical-theological trail in dialogue with believers
of another, sacramental tradition.Without such
doctrinal depth, the baptismal consciousness will be further weakened, to no
one’s benefit.Every church has a responsibility
for itself to revitalize the proclamation of baptism and to integrate it as a
natural part of the ongoing church work, regardless of the tradition the
individual churches may be embedded in.Baptism is much more than just a naming ceremony or
a confession of obedience.I also
recommend the Pentecostal communities to include elements of prayer for the
fullness of the Spirit to overwhelm the newly baptized, in accordance with models
from the early church.Likewise, my
recommendation to the Lutheran church is to link its baptismal practice clearly
to an educational program aimed at different age levels.

3)“Invalid”
baptism? Since a greater understanding of the theological
content of baptism is emerging among the churches, it is difficult to imagine baptism
being used as a proselyte act of separation.Baptism is
by nature a baptism of repentance into the kingdom of God.
It belongs to the very beginning of the Christian faith. Baptism is not suitable as a way of becoming a member
of another church.The unitary nature
of the global church makes it difficult to maintain the claim that baptism
performed in another recognized Christian church simply can be characterized as
invalid as long as it takes place within “the room of faith” in home and
church.

4)Freedom
of conscience? In the future there will be people
who, as a matter of conscience,lookinto their first (infant) baptism
because it does not seem to carry the weight of the biblical texts of a baptism
which links repentance, personal faith and baptism together, and therefore asks
to be baptized as an adult. The same principle applies also to churches which
perform these baptisms on the basis of the new faith and confession of the
baptizands and consider their new baptism to be analogous to the missional
character of the New Testament. Thus it is necessary to discuss the problem of
rebaptism in light of the freedom of conscience for churches as well as for
individuals. Here pragmatic ideals confront theological normativity.A consistent practice dictates that such a
principle would also have to be applied for those who do not want to be baptized again, since they are already living within
the sphere of the theological content of baptism – even if they have been
baptized in another church and in accordance with a different tradition.[39]

5)A
potential model. Based on the ideal of raising the theological
consciousness related to baptism, church affiliation practices which in
practice privatize the doctrine of baptism should be prevented. Baptism will always
be an important church affair. So-called “transmitted membership” may therefore
win distinction as a possible model. It emphasizes that the church is a
congregation of baptized, personal believers.It also
recognizes that the road to faith and service for many is a result of the
contribution of other baptizing churches. Not only have they brought those
persons to baptism, but also to a living faith and discipleship. It seems to be
more than enough. For those previously baptized who want membership without
being rebaptized because their theological understanding of baptism largely is
in agreement with the church they want to attend, there needs to be developed a
liturgy whichemphasizes their commitment
to Christ as Lord and their intention to work in loyalty to the new community.Furthermore, it is expected that new members will
be loyal to the intent and form of baptism which is practised in the congregation.Within the framework of the churches which
practice adult baptism, these new members have to be aware of the fact that the
inclusion of their children – in the next phase – will take place during a
blessing ceremony; a “baptism” without water. A church cannot be enforced to introduce two different
practises.

Toward
a common understanding. To express a “common understanding”
and to admit a “mutual recognition” and a “responsible commitment” is not the
same as having an “unanimous comprehension” in all details. The latter is
hardly possible.
However, it is really possible to approve of an “inner factual coherence” of
what baptism is all about in the global church in general. By expanding the
theological language and by becoming familiar with the theological grammar already
established by the churches through the ecumenical dialogues of the last
decades, we already have in our possession the most basic insights for succeeding
in the baptismal conversation.

Endnotes:

1In
Norway
– as in the other Nordic countries – the majority of the population are members
of the Church of Norway, an evangelical Lutheran folk church.
The state-church system was established in Denmark-Norway in 1537 due to the
Lutheran reformation. The Church
of Norway, practicing infant
baptism, has 3.9 million members which represent around 79 percent of the
Norwegian population. On 21st
of May 2012, the Norwegian Parliament passed a constitutional amendment that
granted the Church
of Norway increased
autonomy. Article 2 in the Norwegian Constitution stated until this
historical amendment that “the Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the
official religion of the State. The inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in
the same.” In the new wording of
the Constitution there is no longer any reference to an “official religion of
the State.” Article 2 in the Constitution now says that Norway's values
are based on its “Christian and humanist heritage”. But still the public
Church Law of 1996 designates the Church
of Norway as “a
confessional, missional, serving, and open Folk Church”
with baptism (normally infant baptism) as criterion for membership.

2A few Pentecostal churches in Norway have decided to welcome new members
without asking for baptism at all. Their argument builds upon a reflection of
the sufficiency of the status of faith alone for the establishment of
membership. Thus these churches
get around the topic of rebaptism for the act of affiliation. However, in the light of important
passages in the story of the primitive church and in order to construct a
sustainable foundation for the process of Christian initiation, you hardly can
split the doctrine of faith from the doctrine of baptism. See the following
passages: Acts 2:38-39; 8:12-13; 10:44-48; 19:4-5; 22:16.

4Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (the BEM Declaration), 1982.Faith
and Order Paper No.111.Geneva: World Council of Churches.

5In Charta
Oecumenica the historical churches in Europe
commit themselves to work towards “visible unity of the Church, expressed in
the mutual recognition of baptism and in eucharistic fellowship, as well as in
common witness and service,” source: http://www.robinblount.co.uk/charter2.html. The
churches want to
“recognize that every person can freely choose his or her religious and church
affiliation as a matter of conscience, which means not inducing anyone to
convert through moral pressure or material incentive, but also not hindering
anyone from entering into conversion of his or her own free will.” The churches
also intend to “overcome the feeling of self-sufficiency within each church,
and to eliminate prejudices; to seek mutual encounters and to be available to
help one another”. Especially the churches propose to “defend the rights of
minorities and to help reduce misunderstandings and prejudices between majority
and minority churches…” The final version of the text of Charta Oecumenica
was received at the SEC/CCEE
Ecumenical Encounter held in Strasbourg
in April 2001, containing guidelines for the growing cooperation among the
churches in Europe.

6Baptist, Eucharist & Ministry.
Report on the Process and Responses.From 1982 to 1990, 1990. Faith and Order Paper No.8.
Geneva: World
Council of Churches.

7As an example, see the latest convergence document from WCC: The
Church, Towards a Common Vision, Faith and Order Commission, Document No. GEN 06, 2012. The same development seems to be
perceptible on the local level as a result of the ecumenical involvement by
churches from different traditions. Young people show the way by their desire to move beyond church borders.
Through impulses from other churches they achieve important ecumenical
competence.
Source: http://www.kirken.no/?event=ShowNews&famId=310626.

8A remarkable case is the development within the frame of the Norwegian
School of Theology, an old Lutheran bastion. During the last decade the school
has given a wide range of educational programs in Pentecostal, Methodist and
Catholic theology. This is based on substantial reflections about how to
cooperate in the academic field without erasing – but rather listen and learn
from – the distinctiveness of each church tradition. See Austad, Thorleif, 2001.
Teologi i kirkens rom:
Menighetsfakultetet som kirkelig og luthersk fakultet (Theology in the Area of
the Church: The Norwegian
School of Theology as
Ecclesiastical and Lutheran Seminary). Oslo: Lærerrådet,

10Borrowed from a song written by Paul Simon in 1969 and recorded in 1970 by Simon
& Garfunkel.

11Ingrid Eskilt and Ingunn
Folkestad Breistein, 2008. “Ecumenism and mission in an
Alliance Perspective”, p.229-244, in: Norwegian Journal of
Mission Studies 62/4. As late as in 1939 infant baptism and adult baptism
were practised in Germany within the same Pentecostal assemblies, Block-Hoell
1964, p. 164-167.

12In his PhD dissertation, Terje
Hegertun surveys the central aspects of the ecumenical positions of the
Pentecostal movement in Norway. While the initial years were characterized by
ecumenical ideals and the movement was placed in an interconfessional
framework, a narrowing of perspective took place after Barratt’s own rebaptism
in 1913. Gradually this led to an ecumenical isolation and in homogenizing
categories of agreement, especially regarding the doctrine of baptism. See Hegertun, Terje, 2009. «Det
brodersind som pinseaanden nødvendigvis maa føde». Analyse av økumeniske
posisjoner i norsk pinsebevegelse med henblikk på utviklingen av en pentekostal
økumenikk og fornyelse av økumeniske arbeidsformer (“The Mind of Brotherhood that the Spirit of Pentecost withNecessity has to Give Birth to”. An analysis of Ecumenical Positions in the Pentecostal Movement of Norway,
Regarding Generating a Pentecostal Ecumenism and a Renewal of Ecumenical
Methods), Trondheim: Tapir akademiske forlag, p. 73.

13Bloch-Hoell,
Nils E., 1956. Pentecostalism: a survey of Pentecostal origins, development
and characteristics, in particular the movement's design in Norway. Oslo: Scandinavian University
Press. An English version was published
in 1964: The Pentecostal Movement, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, pp. 164-67.

18Already from the time of the first
century of the church, we can observe the flexibility with reference to the
question of the quantity of water. A striking example is the advices coming
from the oldest surviving written catechism, Didache (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles). The second part of
the text begins with an instruction on baptism. If possible you have to use
“living water” (natural, flowing water). But if the water is insufficient for
immersion, it may be poured three times on the head. But observe: the ideal was
flowing water. Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/lake/fathers2.v.html

19In the Lutheran tradition there is a
clear distinction between form and content. If a person is baptized in
accordance to these conditions but in another tradition (such as the Baptist’
tradition) he or she does not need to be rebaptized to become a member of a Lutheran Church. In deciding whether a prior baptismal
act should be regarded as valid, the
amount of water is of no relevance. In Pentecostal circles the position is near
the opposite: the act of immersion is evaluated as just as important as other
liturgical elements. Here baptism is linked to the image of the funeral of one’s
old identity, which probably becomes more clearly expressed through the Baptist
tradition of immersion.

20The kerygma
– the message proclaimed – upon which the Christian
life is built is the righteousness which is able to say that “the word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart…” (Rom
10:8). See also Eph 1:1-12 where “the blessings”, “the grace and peace”, “the
adoption of sonship”, “the redemption”, “the forgiveness of sins, “the wisdom
and understanding”, the mystery”, “the purpose of his will”, “our hope in
Christ”, “the message of truth”, “the promised Holy Spirit”,and “the redemption”, is given as proclaimed treasures, totally without
our own involvement and personal ownership as such.

21These non-empirical and
non-perceptible reflections cross the line of Hume’s doctrine of empiricism by
not being “faded copies of earlier sense impression” or “figment of the
imagination”.

26Similarly
a Swedish charismatic church leader, Ulf Ekman, states that non-sacramental
churches normally have a rationalistic conception of the sacraments, which might
in turn lead to a decline in the Christian life. It is not recognized how the
grace of God is conveyed in a manifold of ways.However, the
grace is there through the presence of Jesus, whether we believe it or not, but
it is of no use if we don’t receive it in faith, in: Ekman, Ulf, 2003. Grunden
för vår tro (The Foundation of Our Belief), Uppsala:
Livets Ords Förlag.

27BEM 1982, pp. 2-6. See also the
document from 2011: One Baptism: Towards
Mutual Recognition. A Study Text, Faith and Order Paper No. 210, Geneve:
World Council of Churches 2011, Source:
http://www.oikoumene.org/fileadmin/files/wccmain/documents/p2/2011/One_Baptism_Corrected_for_
reprint.pdf

28During the last ten years the
Pentecostal Movement has become a member of the national ecumenical councils in
Norway
and Sweden
respectively. Consequently, the Pentecostals draw extensively on insights from
the dialogue processes and have become familiar with the theological language
which has been established over the years.

29One
example is the Pauline ascertainment in Gal 3, 26-27 that "in Christ you
are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into
Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ”. This shows that it is the relationship between faith and baptism
which is the adequate point of departure, not distance and differentiation. The
Baptist theology seems to have only two options: to continue a practice in
which the conscious consideration of baptism gradually will be diminished, or
deepen the kind of reflection which connects baptism with the entrance to the
Christian faith and life.

30According to paragraph 22 in De Oecumenismo – the Decree of Ecumenism
from Vatican II, baptism “establishes a sacramental bond of unity which links
all who have been reborn by it. But of itself Baptism is only a beginning, an
inauguration wholly directed toward the fullness of life in Christ. Baptism,
therefore, envisages a complete profession of faith…».

34This is also articulated within the
growing presence of the Catholic adult baptismal tradition in Nordic countries.
When the candidate arrives at the church, she meets at the door by the vicar
who asks: “What do you seek in the Church
of God”? The answer is:
“The faith”. The question continues: “What are you given by faith”? The
candidate answers: “The eternal life”.

36In Confessio Augustana the role of
faith is obvious. In article IV (On Justification) it is stated that the reformators
“teach thatmen cannot be justified before God by their
own powers, merits, or works; but are justified freely for Christ's sake
through faith. Art. XIII (On the
Use of the Sacraments) underline that “men
must use Sacraments so as to join faith with them, which believes the promises
that are offered and declared unto us by the Sacraments.” Editio princeps
(the first edition) adds that “they
condemn those that teach that the Sacraments do justify by the work done (ex
opere operato), and do not teach that faith which believes the remission of
sins is requisite in the use of Sacraments”. Source (in Latin and English
translation): http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds3.iii.ii.html